AJAY KUMAR, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITO-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 421/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 July 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because the approval for its issuance was obtained from the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT) as required by Section 151(ii) for reassessments initiated after four years. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were vitiated.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue is the validity of the notice issued under Section 148, which was issued after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings are void ab initio due to the issuance of a Section 148 notice without proper sanction from the specified authority as per Section 151(ii).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151,Section 151(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Agrawal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 02.07.2026Pronounced: 02.07.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 02.03.2026 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to Ground of Appeal No.2 submitted that if this legal ground is answered in affirmative, then the assessee shall be at home and other grounds become academic only. The Ground of Appeal No.2 is extracted as follows: “2. That under the facts and the law, the Assessment order is void ab initio as issue of notice u/s. 148 dated 26.07.2022 is without sanction from specified authority, the approval has been taken from PCIT whereas it should have been taken from PCCIT as required u/s. 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Prayed to annul the Assessment order.”

3.

In this regard, the Ld. Counsel demonstrated that the notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for A.Y.2017-18 dated 26.07.2022 which is after four years. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the reported decision of the ITAT, DB, Raipur in the case of Kamlesh Kukreja Vs. ITO, (2026) 186 taxmann.com 616 (Raipur-Trib) wherein, on the aforesaid issue it was held and observed as follows: “■ It is an admitted fact that the assessment year involved in the instant case is assessment year 2016-17 and notice u/s

3 Ajay Kumar Vs. ITO-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA No.421/RPR/2026

148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued on 06.07.2022 after obtaining prior approval of the PCIT. A perusal of the order u/s.148A(d) of the Act shows that the same has been issued after obtaining prior approval of the PCIT. [Para 16] ■ Similarly, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.07.2022 shows that the same has been issued after obtaining the prior approval of the PCIT. [Para 17] ■ Since the assessment year involved in the instant case is assessment year 2016-17 and the notice has been issued on 29.07.2022, therefore, the competent authority who should have given the approval as per provisions of section 151 is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or the Director General of Income Tax. However, in the instant case the approval has been given by the PCIT. [Para 18] ■ The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ramesh Bachulal Mehta v. ITO [2025] 177 taxmann.com 606 (Bombay), has held that where reassessment proceedings for assessment year 2016-17 were initiated after expiry of three years from end of relevant year, approval under section 151(ii) was mandatorily required from higher authority i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner, and sanction by Principal Commissioner was not valid. [Para 19] ■ Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Core Logistic Company v. ACIT reported ii2_[2025] 175 taxmann.com 453/175 taxmann.com 453 / 305 Taxman 420 (Madras) has held that where the assessee's case was reopened under section 148 and approval had been obtained in terms of section 151(i) from Principal Commissioner, since amount involved was more than Rs.50 lakhs, approval had to be obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner as per section 151(ii) and, thus, initiation of proceedings itself was without any jurisdiction. [Para 20] ■ Since in the instant case notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued on 29.07.2022 which is beyond the period of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. assessment year 2016-17, therefore, the competent authority who should have given the approval as per provisions of section 151 is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or the Director General of Income Tax. However, in the instant case the same been approved by the PCIT-1, Raipur. Therefore, such

4 Ajay Kumar Vs. ITO-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA No.421/RPR/2026

approval being not in accordance with law is invalid and consequently the entire reassessment proceedings are vitiated. The re-assessment proceedings are quashed. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, the grounds raised on merit by the assessee are not adjudicated being academic in nature. [Para 21]”

4.

Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Skypak Travels (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (2026) 185 taxmann.com 963 (Bombay) wherein it was held and observed as follows:

“Whether notice more than three years had elapsed from end of relevant assessment year, specified authority was authority contemplated by Section 151(ii) and not authority mentioned in section 151(i)-Held, yes-whether since approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, who was not competent authority in law for a case falling beyond three year period from end of relevant assessment year, defect being not a mere procedural irregularity but approval by a wrong authority, assumption of jurisdiction itself was bad and impugned order and notice were to be quashed- Held yes.”

5.

Admittedly, in the case of the assessee approval u/s.151 of the Act had been given by the PCIT whereas, as per Section 151(ii) of the Act, it should have been given by PCCIT. Since in the present case, notice u/s. 148 of the Act has been issued on 26.07.2022 which is beyond the period of three years from end of the relevant assessment year i.e. A.Y.2017-18, therefore, competent authority who should have granted the approval as per Section 151 of the Act is Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or the Director General of Income

5 Ajay Kumar Vs. ITO-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ITA No.421/RPR/2026

Tax. However, in the present case, the approval has been granted by the PCIT, Raipur, therefore, such approval being not in accordance with law is invalid and consequently, entire reassessment proceedings are vitiated, thus, the same is quashed.

6.

Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, rest other grounds on merits are not adjudicated being academic in nature.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 2nd day of July, 2026. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 2nd July, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

Samiran Bera, आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Sr. PS, ITAT, // True Copy // Raipur Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Digitally signed by Samiran Bera, Sr. PS, ITAT, Raipur Date: 2026.07.02 17:54:09 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →